Talk:EDL

English Defence League

They're not right-wing. Only some arms of the media have used this description, and from my brief research, not the majority. Right-wing applies in politics only. As they aren't political, and are only now talking about the possibility of a political future, they can't yet be right wing. If they become political, then they still won't be right wing, though I am sure ultra-left media will brand them as such. They oppose fascism, which is far-right.

They also oppose orthodox Islam and Islamification of Britain. This is undisputable and is the most relevant thing about the group. It should therefore be the description.

How anyone can think that 'far-right' is more appropriate is a mystery, so I suspect that in fact no-one does, but the far-right branding is part of the agenda of a group of users. There is no reason to change the description from it's current neutral state "a group of English activists who oppose Islamification".

If only the media were as reilable and neutral people might actually make up their own minds once in a while. I know this is Wikipedia, and it's mostly run by far-left teenagers and students, so I don't have high hopes for neutrality, but it's probably worth trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TokenPassport (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

All RS have described this group as right wing, and that is the policy consensus on the EDL page - where you have been editwarring. Neutrality does not mean ignoring all RS, it means following the RS. Verbal chat 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How can a single issue protest group be either right or left wing? Its like saying UAF is a left wing group when members of right wing political parties, (for example David Cameron) support the group. It could at least be changed to "a British protest group considered to be far right" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.42.54 (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Umm。。。

In what way is "English Defence League, a British far-right single issue political organisation" more accurate or informative than "A British group that protests against Islam" "against Islam" is a lot more precise and value-neutral than "far-right", Re: single issue political organisation, umm... what is their issue? I don't think they are really that involved in the political process either. As for organisation... their protests are basically just meetups for hooligans, the word "group" is more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I really neither know nor care where EDL sits on the political spectrum. However I am certain that "far-right" is used as a pejorative, virtually a synonym with Nazi, just as other terms have in the past been used to equate ideological out-groups with contemporary demonized figures (or indeed jut plain demons). I suspect the disambiguation page would loose nothing by having the left-right characterisation removed and leaving that debate to the target page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

I think we cannot —and should not— speculate about whether the left-right characterisation is used as a pejorative here. I.m.o. such depends solely on the reader. The lead of the target page however solidly depends (with five hard, unchallenged sources) on this characterisation, so I think that this dab would indeed loose a slight something if we remove it. Just my two cents. - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DABs and DAB talk pages are not for content disputes, that is not welcome or useful here - only in the article/talk. Here we only disambiguate as briefly as possible, and with no regard to content disputes as we mirror the wording. We only need to use as few words possible to differentiate from the English Disco Lovers, so some sort of qualification is required. Saying that, we shouldn't dilute the location on the spectrum or censor. The wording as is is fine in my experience. Widefox; talk 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)